The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport of the claim and the purport of appeal:

1. Basic facts - The Plaintiff is a company that carries on the construction business of metal structures, etc., and the Defendant is a company that carries on the construction design construction business.

- From August 2016, the Plaintiff received a request from the Defendant to perform various creative works.

The details of the Plaintiff’s construction work are as listed below 1.

The Plaintiff’s representative G also operated the business entity called “H”, and the Defendant had a total of KRW 5,3130,000,000 against the Defendant.

- The Defendant paid 40 million won in total to the Plaintiff and 55 million won in total to H as shown in Table 2 below.

A A H H / [founded grounds for recognition] A in accordance with Table 2, the fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 8 (including branch numbers), Eul 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant's total amount of KRW 65,483,00,000 for the re-payment of KRW 65,483,00 for the total amount of the re-payment of the attached Table 1 above to the plaintiff (amount paid by the plaintiff) and KRW 1,870,00 (=50,000 won - 53,130,00 won)

H. In other words, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at a rate of 12% per annum under the Litigation Promotion Act from February 14, 2020 to the date of complete payment, as sought by the Plaintiff, to the remainder of 23,613,00 won (i.e., KRW 65,483,00 won - KRW 40,000 - KRW 1870,000) less the Defendant’s excessive payment to H) and as sought by the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion (1) and the Defendant agreed on the total amount of KRW 96,450,000 for several recommended construction works performed by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant paid KRW 95,00,000 to the Plaintiff as shown in the above Table 2.

Therefore, the unpaid construction cost is limited to 1.45 million won (i.e., KRW 96.45 million - KRW 95 million). (2) The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant consulted on the total construction cost as alleged.

In addition, as seen earlier, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff KRW 95 million, but rather paid the Plaintiff KRW 4.0 million.